1990 PLP 1038 (SCMR)
MERAJ DIN and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Haji MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1038 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MERAJ DIN and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Haji MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Contract Act (IX of 1872)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1038 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Contract Act (IX of 1872)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1038 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1038 (SCMR) (MERAJ DIN and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Haji MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Sh. Abdul Sattar Zahid, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Ch. Riasat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate- on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 22nd.Octobcr, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 8‑2‑1986 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No. 1843‑D of 1985). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 186 & 187‑‑‑Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 17 & 30‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), .Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Plaintiffs' predecessor‑in‑interest having appointed defendant as his attorney, the latter alienated property in question on basis of that agency in favour of defendant‑vendee‑‑‑Dispute having arisen between plaintiffs and defendants, attorney referred the dispute to arbitrator‑‑‑Arbitration proceedings were ultimately concluded in defendants' favour and award given was made rule of the Court‑‑‑Plaintiffs brought a suit challenging the power of attorney‑‑‑Plaintiffs' suit and appeal having been dismissed, High Court also dismissed revision‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Plaintiffs having not been able to challenge findings of fact, regarding execution of power of attorney raised the plea that said power of attorney did not authorise, reference of any dispute to arbitrator‑‑‑Same point was raised before High Court where it was repelled on the ground of having not been raised earlier‑‑‑Plaintiffs side remained unable to satisfy the Court that High Court could not have refused to examine that question in its revisional jurisdiction, if it had not been raised earlier‑‑‑Such point, however, could not have been examined without further inquiry; because the attorney might have relied upon some other documents and/or circumstances in addition to the Power of Attorney so as to show that he had the authority to refer the matter to arbi trator ‑‑‑Even otherwise on facts and circumstances of the case petitioner failed to satisfy the Court on the merits of plea that defendant was not so authorised‑‑ Attorney was thus so authorised‑‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Sh. Abdul Sattar Zahid, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Ch. Riasat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate- on‑Record for Respondent No.1. Date of hearing: 22nd.Octobcr, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs side in a suit for declaration; against the dismissal of their Civil Revision. The petitioners have lost throughout. The land in dispute was owned by one Budha deceased. He executed a power of attorney in favour of respondent No. 2 who alienated the suit property on the basis of that agency, in favour of respondent No.
1. Dispute having arisen with the petitioners, the attorney referred the matter to arbitrator. And those proceedings ultimately concluded in favour of the respondents side by the Court making the award, as 'rule of the Court. The petitioners, who are heirs of Budha deceased, brought the present suit for declaration challenging the execution of the power of attorney. Other pleas were also raised. They claimed ownership on the basis of inheritance. Their suit and appeal having been dismissed the High Court also dismissed their revision petition. They have now sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel not having been able to challenge the findings of fact regarding the execution of .the power of attorney raised a legal argument; namely, that the said power of attorney did not authorise the reference of any dispute to an arbitrator. Same point was raised before the High Court. It was repelled on the ground that it had not been raised earlier. Learned counsel remained unable to satisfy us that the High Court could not have refused to examine this question in its revisional jurisdiction if it, had not been raised earlier. Further, after hearing him on this point we are of the view that it could not have been examined without further inquiry; because, the attorney might have relied upon some other documents and/or circumstances in addition to the Power of Attorney so as to show that he had the authority to refer the matter to an arbitrator. Otherwise too, in the facts and circumstances of this case we are not satisfied can the factual merits of this plea that he was not so authorised. Leave to appeal. therefore, is refused. A.A./M‑1156/S Leave refused,